Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Standard Zoom Mega Shootout! (DA Vs FAJ Vs DAL Vs SA Vs FA!)

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Standard Zoom Mega Shootout! (DA Vs FAJ Vs DAL Vs SA Vs FA!)



Test Methodology and Conditions:-

1. K-x on Tripod, Single AF mode, Central Single AF point selected, 2 second Timer with MLU;

2. Focal Lengths were tested as marked on the lenses, Av Exposure mode (and of course), Matrix Metering, No Exposure Compensation;

3. Portrait Custom Image -1, 0, 0, 0, Sharpness 0, AWB;

4. All images are resized to 3,999 pixels in width and no other re-touching is made to the images, All EXIF data preserved. Click Any of the Thumbnails will download the Large Size Image in a New Tab/Window. (Note: All Large Files!)

Lens & Focal
f/4 or 4.5
f/5.6
f/8
DA 16-45 @16
DA 16-45 @20
DA 16-45 @28
DA 16-45 @35
DA 16-45 @45
FAJ 18-35 @18
FAJ 18-35 @24
FAJ 18-35 @28
FAJ 18-35 @35
Not Available
DAL 18-55 @18
DAL 18-55 @24
DAL 18-55 @35
DAL 18-55 @45Not Available
DAL 18-55 @55
Not Available
SA 18-55 @18
SA 18-55 @24
SA 18-55 @35
SA 18-55 @45Not Available
SA 18-55 @55Not Available
FA 24-90 @24
FA 24-90 @28
FA 24-90 @35
FA 24-90 @50
FA 24-90 @70
FA 24-90 @90


How to Measurbate, then? Download the Large Files and inspect the image centre and borders, note about contrast and sharpness, colour differences, distortion of the images and so on. Compare against one and each other(s) for the same/near focal length and see the effect of different apertures on the output Image Quality.

I do not test f/11 for all lenses as it is almost for sure that f/11 will not be as sharp as the diffraction limit is usually reached for APS-C DSLRs. My advice is that if you want to stop down, usually don't go beyond f/9.5 for optimal image quality! And, dust specks, if any, are more visible from f/11 and onwards, too.

Well, which lens(es) do I like more or most? Umm.., I think putting aside the different range and the physical characteristics of them (e.g., size and weight, design and operation, etc.), I would rate: FA 24-90 > DA 16-45 > FAJ 18-35 > SA 18-55 ~ DAL 18-55, as long as IQ is concerned, overall speaking.

Interestingly, according to Bojidar Dimitrov's K-mount Page, the optical formulae of the DAL 18-55 is the same as that of the DA 18-55II, whilst my "Samsung" Blue Ring SA 18-55 is the same as the original Pentax DA 18-55. So, my this comparison should show what are the actual difference(s) between the two optical formulae on the Image Quality, if any. But do bear in mind about sample variation as well for those cheapo kit lenses (of which the QC is not really good from my experiences).

What do you think, on the other hand? :-)


Read Also:-

Lens Matching with My Navy K-x

Comments (9)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I agree with your conclusion. I do not use my 18-55 anymore. I had a 16-45 borrowed from my friend for few days trip to see how I would like it and I ended up buying a 24-90 second hand. The build quality is rather poor, but it is very dependable lens IQ wise on all focal length and f-stops. Then I bought some primes to compensate the lack of extreme wide end.
In Bridge the pictures from my 18-55mm DAL is recognized as being from the DA II. I believe the optical formula is the same, just less expensive construction (no lens hood, no distance markers on the focus ring (why not?) and a plastic mount. I don't mind the plastic mount, it's very cheap, rather it break than the camera if something were to happen, but was looking forward to a white lens hood, and I use the distance markers for landscape photography!
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Michael A.'s avatar

Michael A. · 784 weeks ago

You are correct, the updated formula and lens' CHIP are the same as DA II WR. DA L is optically a bit better than the first DA... But well behind the DA16-45mm (have both).

Contrary to this shootout, my FA24-90 had way too pronounced CA's and had been returned (made in T. - perhaps sample to sample variations).

However, the DA16-45 is a great walk-around performer (used $215)...
Thanks for the trouble, but too difficult to judge the lenses with that particular target.
Studio comparison would be better.
1 reply · active 784 weeks ago
Studio tests can only check lens performance for near targets. It is impossible for them to test the lenses for infinity objects. (How can one make a lens test-chart that is placed at the infinity?)

Precise, accurate and stringent alignments are actually required for testing near targets. Unless properly setup and alignments are professionally made, the test errors could be more than the internal mis-alignments and aberration of the lens' elements within a lens!

DoF is another factor come into play and so does the focusing accuracy. So, for near targets, the affecting factors are much more, which should be carefully eliminated for the possible errors that are involved.

As people seldom test lenses systematically for infinity objects, I do it this time! (Just imagine that the building crowds as the lens test chart and patterns!)
Michael A.'s avatar

Michael A. · 784 weeks ago

Alexander Evensen, you are correct. The updated formula and lens' CHIP are the same as DA II WR. DA L is optically a bit better than the first DA... But well behind the DA16-45mm (have both).

Further more, the sample of FA24-90 I received (all made in T.) was substandard to DA16-45 as well - VERY pronounced CA's (misalignment?). So contrary to this shootout, no keeper at all.

Therefore, DA16-45mm seems most desirable choice as a value...sharp@good bokeh/CA's can be easily pre-corrected in new bodies/NO focusing problem/compatible with ALL digital bodies/great price used (mine was $215)
Rice H, you are welcome to Sweden, where the air is less polluted to make an infinity test!
Larseric Fjellman, www.fjellmans.se
Hi Rice, I was very curious about your descision to put 24-90 above the 16-45. So I opened both lenses at 28mm/F4 and in this case, the 16-45 is miles ahead the old FA design. If you look at the righ lower corner, the ships and their windows are clearly defined in the picture taken with DA 16-45. In the center, the gap is closing, but anyway the DA 16-45 has better contrast and details here.

Anyway nice comparison and testing target is quite good for judging differences.
1 reply · active 784 weeks ago
Yes, the DA 16-45 and FA 24-90 are close and they have something over the other depending on what you look at. In fact, I just made a rough "overall speaking" conclusion in this post and that's why opinions from you guys are invited! :-)

Post a new comment

Comments by